Some Questions regarding the original trilogy*Spoilers*

[BotD]

Well, I just finished the first trilogy for the first time, and, as most of you already know, it was awesome. But a few things puzzled me.

I don't fully understand why the Bloodguard broke the Vow. I know Bannor said something about no man should be deprived of a wife and children. What realization caused this turn from the Vow?

Second, what exactly caused the despair of the Giants that they did not defend themselves?

Lastly, the paradox of Thomas Covenant's unbelief and caring for the Land confounds me. Lord Foul taunts Covenant with it in their final battle, but Covenant says it is possible. How? Also at the end he appears to still be in unbelief, even in the face of his miraculous recovery, and his conversation with the Creator. Has unbelief become irrelevant? Or does Covenant still cling to it?

[Chasmys]

I don't fully understand why the Bloodguard broke the Vow. I know Bannor said something about no man should be deprived of a wife and children. What realization caused this turn from the Vow?

The breaking of the Vow was not a decision. It was a consequence. In other words, the Bloodguard didn't choose to quit the Vow; the Vow quit them. The Bloodguard were proven incapable of upholding the Vow when Korik and his companions were corrupted by the Illearth Stone.

If Korik could be corrupted, then the same is true of any Bloodguard. Such potential for corruption is simply incompatible with the Vow. Both cannot be true.

Second, what exactly caused the despair of the Giants that they did not defend themselves?

The Giants had considered themselves uncorruptible, and despaired when faced with proof to the contrary. As a further rationalization, they felt it was better to be killed than turned against the Land they loved.

When something you once treasured is seen as less valuable than previously thought, it often gets sold even more cheaply than it deserves. Even if that something is your life. It's the same thing that drives people to buy stocks high and sell them low.

Lastly, the paradox of Thomas Covenant's unbelief and caring for the Land confounds me. Lord Foul taunts Covenant with it in their final battle, but Covenant says it is possible. How? Also at the end he appears to still be in unbelief, even in the face of his miraculous recovery, and his conversation with the Creator. Has unbelief become irrelevant? Or does Covenant still cling to it?

It infuriates Foul, but it's really not all that complicated. Think about the real world for a minute. A determined skeptic (an Unbeliever) will say that none of the things we believe are provable. Nevertheless, the fact that we cannot prove our beliefs does not render us incapable of making moral decisions. Even if there were no such thing as the real world -- even if all of our experiences are illusory -- moral decisions lose none of their validity.

Put another way: ethics is independent of epistemology.

[hierachy]

Well, it seems Chasmys has already answered your questions to a more than satisfactory level, so I'll just be the first to say: Welcome to the watch, BotD! Much awaits you in the second chronicals, and dare I say it, the third!

[variol son]

Second, what exactly caused the despair of the Giants that they did not defend themselves?

When Foul mastered the three brothers of one birth, the Giants saw that they could be corrupted, could be made to become what they hated. The reaon that this lead them to await death as they did was the fact that, in their pride, they had believed this to be impossible. Foamfollower survived because, as he tells Covenant in The Power That Preserves, he had already seen the innate violence in himself during the battle of Saoring Woodhelven, and so was not so shocked.

Lastly, the paradox of Thomas Covenant's unbelief and caring for the Land confounds me. Lord Foul taunts Covenant with it in their final battle, but Covenant says it is possible. How? Also at the end he appears to still be in unbelief, even in the face of his miraculous recovery, and his conversation with the Creator. Has unbelief become irrelevant? Or does Covenant still cling to it?

Basically, Covenant comes to the realization that, though the Land may not by real, it still has value. Even if it only exists as a dream in his mind, in his mind it is incredalby important and worth fighting for. So the actual existance of the Land becomes irrelevant. Covenant loves the Land. If it only exists in his mind, then it is worth saving, in his mind. And if it exists outside of his mind, then it is worth saving outside of his mind.

I hope that helps.

Sum sui generis
Vs

[CovenantJr]

Eloquently put, both Chasmys and VS

[dlbpharmd]

Well, I just finished the first trilogy for the first time, and, as most of you already know, it was awesome. But a few things puzzled me.

I don't fully understand why the Bloodguard broke the Vow. I know Bannor said something about no man should be deprived of a wife and children. What realization caused this turn from the Vow?

Second, what exactly caused the despair of the Giants that they did not defend themselves?

Lastly, the paradox of Thomas Covenant's unbelief and caring for the Land confounds me. Lord Foul taunts Covenant with it in their final battle, but Covenant says it is possible. How? Also at the end he appears to still be in unbelief, even in the face of his miraculous recovery, and his conversation with the Creator. Has unbelief become irrelevant? Or does Covenant still cling to it?

Great questions which have been adequately answered. Let me invite you to visit the "Dissecting the Land" forum. Every chapter of 1st Chronicles has been reviewed and discussed in great detail. Please feel free to add your opinions. It would be great to see the Land anew from a new reader's point of view.

[wayfriend]

I don't fully understand why the Bloodguard broke the Vow.

The breaking of the Vow was not a decision. It was a consequence. In other words, the Bloodguard didn't choose to quit the Vow; the Vow quit them. The Bloodguard were proven incapable of upholding the Vow when Korik and his companions were corrupted by the Illearth Stone.

Whoa! I would have to strongly disagree with this analysis.

The corruption of the Bloodguard by the Illearth Stone did lead directly to the end of the Vow. But it was not broken, it was withdrawn.

If it was broken - if it was a consequence - it would have ended immediately upon Korik, Sill, and Doar taking up the Stone. But, instead, the three went all the way back to Revelstone, and then Bannor, Terrel, and Runnik went out and slew them. And then

When first Mark Banner saw how Korik and his comrades had been corrupted despite their Vow, he and all the Bloodguard abandoned their service.

This is when the Vow ended. And it was withdrawn with volition. The Bloodguard believed that, since they had proven unable to perfectly resist Corruption, they were not worthy to serve the Lords with their Vow. And, being Haruchai, it's all or nothing, and so they returned to their mountain homes.

[CovenantJr]

To my mind, both answers are one and the same. The Vow was so fundamental that, upon their failure to uphold it, it ended - perhaps not broken, but finished. Once the Vow was gone, any further service the Bloodguard could have rendered would have seemed (to them, at least) feeble and hollow in comparison. The vow was both the result and the reason for their service.

IMHO

[Chasmys]

If it was broken - if it was a consequence - it would have ended immediately upon Korik, Sill, and Doar taking up the Stone. But, instead, the three went all the way back to Revelstone, and then Bannor, Terrel, and Runnik went out and slew them.

Not all consequences are immediate. For example, poisoning a well doesn't immediately result in the deaths of the villagers. It's only when the villagers drink from the well that the full consequences of your action take effect.

Once the three maimed bloodguard showed up at Revelstone, the breaking of the Vow was inevitable. The only decision for the rest of the bloodguard was the exact manner of its breaking.

Effectively, their decision -- if you can call it that -- was to abandon the Vow sooner rather than later, with dignity in lieu of vanity. If Bannor and the others had simply ignored Korik's corruption, the Vow still would have been broken -- but in much uglier fashion.

But I'll leave that little thought experiment to your collective imaginations

[A Gunslinger]

If it was broken - if it was a consequence - it would have ended immediately upon Korik, Sill, and Doar taking up the Stone. But, instead, the three went all the way back to Revelstone, and then Bannor, Terrel, and Runnik went out and slew them.

Not all consequences are immediate. For example, poisoning a well doesn't immediately result in the deaths of the villagers. It's only when the villagers drink from the well that the full consequences of your action take effect.

Once the three maimed bloodguard showed up at Revelstone, the breaking of the Vow was inevitable. The only decision for the rest of the bloodguard was the exact manner of its breaking.

Effectively, their decision -- if you can call it that -- was to abandon the Vow sooner rather than later, with dignity in lieu of vanity. If Bannor and the others had simply ignored Korik's corruption, the Vow still would have been broken -- but in much uglier fashion.

But I'll leave that little thought experiment to your collective imaginations

Also, don't forget that TC himself played a role in corrupting the Vow by making Bannor speak the name of the seventh ward which indirectly caused High Lord Elena to fall. This too was part of the end of the vow. Bannor realized that the price associated with such service was too high.

Herein lies the great dichotomy between the Bloodguard Vow and the Oath of Peace.

[Chasmys]

Also, don't forget that TC himself played a role in corrupting the Vow by making Bannor speak the name of the seventh ward which indirectly caused High Lord Elena to fall. This too was part of the end of the vow. Bannor realized that the price associated with such service was too high.

I can't recall any real indications of that -- only TC's guilt-ridden musings. As far as I can tell, it is simply misplaced guilt.

When TC forced Bannor to reveal the name, it subtly altered the Vow, or perhaps clarified it -- but that change had nothing to do with its ultimate corruption. In fact, timing wise, I'd have to guess that Korik had already picked up the Stone by the time the name of the 7th ward was revealed.

I think that TC's effect on the Vow is a form of foreshadowing through paralellism. The seemingly unalterable Vow is altered. If it can be altered, it can be corrupted -- but that doesn't mean that all forms of alteration are corruption.

[A Gunslinger]

Also, don't forget that TC himself played a role in corrupting the Vow by making Bannor speak the name of the seventh ward which indirectly caused High Lord Elena to fall. This too was part of the end of the vow. Bannor realized that the price associated with such service was too high.

I can't recall any real indications of that -- only TC's guilt-ridden musings. As far as I can tell, it is simply misplaced guilt.

When TC forced Bannor to reveal the name, it subtly altered the Vow, or perhaps clarified it -- but that change had nothing to do with its ultimate corruption. In fact, timing wise, I'd have to guess that Korik had already picked up the Stone by the time the name of the 7th ward was revealed.

I think that TC's effect on the Vow is a form of foreshadowing through paralellism. The seemingly unalterable Vow is altered. If it can be altered, it can be corrupted -- but that doesn't mean that all forms of alteration are corruption.

Re-read TPtP. I have been reading it, nearly finished.

At the bottom of Paperback (del rey) page 56, Mhoram internally comments that the..."Bloodgaurd rectitude had been crucially tarnished when Covenant had forced Bannor reveal the name of the Power of Command...", thereby breaking the law of death, and causing the blodguard to fail in the vow. Bannor felt HE was responsible for the death of Elena., and that the VOW had become too expensive. VERY much like the Oath of Peace that Mhoram swears off! Sheesh!

[A Gunslinger]

I also hasten to add that given the absolute nature of the Bloodguard that any change in the nature of the Vow to the extent that Corruption itslef was served would be viewed as a breaking of the Vow. Think about it. Because of TC forcing the hand of Bannor, Elena served the despiser (Corruption) by breaking the Law of Death. Do I agree with Bannor? No. But it is true nonetheless.

[Silverleaf]

Now, whats really going to freak us out is since the Law of Death has been corrupted, and Foul will attack Time in the upcoming series..

Just how much of the Past will be resurrected ?

What other Laws will be corrupted in the Last Chronicles?

The rift of time is a balance between the past, the future and current events, and yet without the Law of Time and Death intact, corruption isn't just possible, its already begun.

[Chasmys]

Gunslinger, thanks for those ideas -- in particular, showing Bannor's perspective, blaming himself. In that respect, Bannor really did begin to morph into Covenant on that journey to Melenkurion Skyweir. That explains a new aspect of Elena's marrowmeld sculpture.

[A Gunslinger]

You bet. Bannor, in TPtP actually brings that sculpture up in conversation w/ TC. Not in a happy sense either.

As for Silverleaf's comments:

I hope to Hell and Blood Mhoram returns, having been resurrected by the breaking of the Law of Death and the land's (sure) need to be healed by pure and BALANCED service.